The first step is naming the problem

. . . for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you’ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed.

. . . It’s one thing to make the paper’s pages a congenial home for editorial polemicists, conceptual artists, the fashion-forward or other like-minded souls (European papers, aligned with specific political parties, have been doing it for centuries), and quite another to tell only the side of the story your co-religionists wish to hear. I don’t think it’s intentional when The Times does this. But negligence doesn’t have to be intentional.

I think it’s an intentional bias, but, obviously, it’s almost impossible to prove this unless some reporters become extremely honest.

Okrent does make a good point that the NYT’s bias stems from its location. It shouldn’t be any surprise that it reflects the leftier, urban sensibilites of its home town. But he also doesn’t think this is an excuse for its biased coverage. He concludes, “Taking the New York out of The New York Times would be a really bad idea. But a determination by the editors to be mindful of the weight of its hometown’s presence would not.” If they want to become an even larger national paper, then they should definitely work harder at this. Besides, God forbid New Yorkers read a story that might make them think twice about an issue.